The Unknown Poster Posted February 17, 2015 Report Posted February 17, 2015 A lot of serious discussion here so maybe something a bit lighter: http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/02/13/cnn-tonight-mel-robbins-dawn-hawkins-sports-illustrated-swimsuit.cnn/video/playlists/most-popular-domestic/?iid=ob_article_footer_expansion&iref=obnetwork Interesting debate between two women about the SI Swimsuit cover. If someone can imbed the pic, that would be cool but essentially her bikini bottom is pulled down to a few milimeters above her genitals. Im a big women's rights guy but I was immediately rolling my eyes at the woman who was against the cover...Are we sending a terrible message to young girls? Thoughts?
17to85 Posted February 17, 2015 Report Posted February 17, 2015 In this day and age seems a silly thing to get worked up about. Kids today are raised on the internet, you can see a hell of a lot more if you choose to. I never quite understood the puritanical view of the human body. Just doesn't make sense. Hell they've had the same kind of exposure for men too. When they do their body issue they have all the male athletes doing the same kind of **** to show off the abs.
Mike Posted February 17, 2015 Report Posted February 17, 2015 "We can do whatever we want unless what we're doing is something that can be viewed as exploitation in which case it's sad that we think we have to do that unless we want to unless we want to because a man told us we want to" #yesallwomen Noeller 1
The Unknown Poster Posted February 17, 2015 Author Report Posted February 17, 2015 "We can do whatever we want unless what we're doing is something that can be viewed as exploitation in which case it's sad that we think we have to do that unless we want to unless we want to because a man told us we want to" #yesallwomen I hate to say that my first thought when watching the debate was that the women arguing against it only wished anyone would want to see her in that bikini. I was recently in Jamaica and a couple of the women with our group got up from lounging on the beach to go to the bar. One of them was wearing a small bikini and had a great body and the other was wearing a more conservative bikini. The small bikini one said "I should grab a cover" and the other said "are you kidding, if I had your body I'd wear a bikini everywhere". She gets it. And its a good argument. Im a guy and I feel nothing in the way of pressure to look like the guys I see in movies like 50 Shades or magazine covers. Sure, I *want* to be jacked and ripped but I dont feel pressure from society or feel that only guys that look like that are accepted. I realise its more of an issue for women. But I also think there is a point where we can go too far. There is plenty of "skinny shaming" that goes on. Meghan Trainor caused controversey because in her song "All About The Base" she has a line that says "Tell all them skinny b!tches that". Im not sure what message the cover sends other then its okay to work really hard to be in really good shape and show off your fitness. I also agree about the whole body shaming thing. Like are girls going to see that and suddenly become aware that they have genitals? I had a recent discussion with two friends talking about their Godson who has some issues and one thing that neither of them liked was that the kid was 6 years old and his parents will be naked around him.
The Unknown Poster Posted February 17, 2015 Author Report Posted February 17, 2015 Here is an interesting counterpoint concerning Cindy Crawford (and also a really crappy thing for that "journalist" to do in releasing a picture of Cindy without her permission): http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/16/opinion/drexler-cindy-crawford/index.html
17to85 Posted February 17, 2015 Report Posted February 17, 2015 Im not sure what message the cover sends other then its okay to work really hard to be in really good shape and show off your fitness. it sends the only message it was ever intended to send... that good looking people are good looking.
Brandon Posted February 18, 2015 Report Posted February 18, 2015 I don't get who bothers buying Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Magazines and really who gives a crap when the net has obscene amounts of naked women with all shapes and sizes readily available at a click of a button for free. Clearly SI is exploiting and trying hard to get lonely old bastards to buy the magazines, but most people don't give a shite. I don't get why nudity is such a horrible thing, but having gun magazines and body building magazines (with people who clearly are injecting very harmful stuff into themselves) is a ok to put on the shelf.
SPuDS Posted February 18, 2015 Report Posted February 18, 2015 Hip bones and the front of a groin.... The horrors... The horrors...
Logan007 Posted February 18, 2015 Report Posted February 18, 2015 In this day and age seems a silly thing to get worked up about. Kids today are raised on the internet, you can see a hell of a lot more if you choose to. I never quite understood the puritanical view of the human body. Just doesn't make sense. Hell they've had the same kind of exposure for men too. When they do their body issue they have all the male athletes doing the same kind of **** to show off the abs. I don't think it has to do with showing the human body naked. I think it has to do with showing the human body in a sexually explicit pose on the cover of a magazine for everyone to see. Not that anyone buys magazines anymore. The only time I ever see a magazine rack is when I go into a gas station when I'm on a road trip. Going to the beach and seeing people in bikini's, even thong ones, is different then someone who is pulling their bikini's down in a sexual way. It has to do with body language. Oh, and just to make a comment about kids, not all kids are raised on the internet. Parents who give a crap don't let their kids do whatever they want on the internet. Please don't generalize. max power 1
Atomic Posted February 18, 2015 Report Posted February 18, 2015 In this day and age seems a silly thing to get worked up about. Kids today are raised on the internet, you can see a hell of a lot more if you choose to. I never quite understood the puritanical view of the human body. Just doesn't make sense. Hell they've had the same kind of exposure for men too. When they do their body issue they have all the male athletes doing the same kind of **** to show off the abs. I don't think it has to do with showing the human body naked. I think it has to do with showing the human body in a sexually explicit pose on the cover of a magazine for everyone to see. Not that anyone buys magazines anymore. The only time I ever see a magazine rack is when I go into a gas station when I'm on a road trip. Going to the beach and seeing people in bikini's, even thong ones, is different then someone who is pulling their bikini's down in a sexual way. It has to do with body language. Oh, and just to make a comment about kids, not all kids are raised on the internet. Parents who give a crap don't let their kids do whatever they want on the internet. Please don't generalize. Parents who think they can control what their kids are seeing these days are either naïve or helicopter parents. Maybe you can watch them until they're 8 or 9, but after that all bets are off. They will end up at a friend's house where the parents don't watch as closely as you do and away they go. My parents were fairly strict when I was young and if I could figure out a way to get my hands on a Playboy then kids today can sure as hell find porn or whatever else they want on the internet.
The Unknown Poster Posted February 18, 2015 Author Report Posted February 18, 2015 Thats a great point. When we were kids and there was no internet (well Im not *that* old, I had the internet in my teens), we still managed to get a copy of a dirty magazine or a porn film. And in my case it wasnt my dad's. I dont think the cover is particularly sexualized, its just the bottoms are pulled down to show more skin. The debate in the CNN piece raised good points about naked people on the cover of more "artsy" magazines. I agree there is a difference been "healthy" nudity and sexualized nudity but Im not sure I see that here. And if a kid sees it and starts asking questions, it's an opportunity for the parent to talk to their kid. Friends of friends of mine have a kid who's a "problem" child and the more stories I hear, the more I shake my head. For example, the kid pulls his pants down and gyrates his hips and he refers to female genitals as a "rooster:.
Jacquie Posted February 18, 2015 Report Posted February 18, 2015 I'm still trying to figure out why SI has a swim suit edition. What the heck do models in bikinis have to do with sports. It's SI's one month on the year to channel their inner Playboy.
mbrg Posted February 18, 2015 Report Posted February 18, 2015 Show too much? Just wait till I'm on the cover next year! There won't enough eye-bleach in the world to un-see that.
New_Earth_Mud Posted February 18, 2015 Report Posted February 18, 2015 I'm still trying to figure out why SI has a swim suit edition. What the heck do models in bikinis have to do with sports. It's SI's one month on the year to channel their inner Playboy. Guys like sports and they also like models in bikinis?
New_Earth_Mud Posted February 18, 2015 Report Posted February 18, 2015 Show too much? Just wait till I'm on the cover next year! There won't enough eye-bleach in the world to un-see that. Folks all over be scooping out their eyes with spoons
The Unknown Poster Posted February 18, 2015 Author Report Posted February 18, 2015 Was it SI that did the athletes photo shoot with several different athletes pictured naked?
17to85 Posted February 18, 2015 Report Posted February 18, 2015 In this day and age seems a silly thing to get worked up about. Kids today are raised on the internet, you can see a hell of a lot more if you choose to. I never quite understood the puritanical view of the human body. Just doesn't make sense. Hell they've had the same kind of exposure for men too. When they do their body issue they have all the male athletes doing the same kind of **** to show off the abs. I don't think it has to do with showing the human body naked. I think it has to do with showing the human body in a sexually explicit pose on the cover of a magazine for everyone to see. Not that anyone buys magazines anymore. The only time I ever see a magazine rack is when I go into a gas station when I'm on a road trip. Going to the beach and seeing people in bikini's, even thong ones, is different then someone who is pulling their bikini's down in a sexual way. It has to do with body language. Oh, and just to make a comment about kids, not all kids are raised on the internet. Parents who give a crap don't let their kids do whatever they want on the internet. Please don't generalize. Don't under estimate the ingenuity of a kid who wants to see some titties. Unless you're really going to clamp down on what the kids are doing and be one of those overbearing never trust them with anything types, where there is a will there's a way. Really though I've seen the cover I don't think it is a sexually explicit pose at all, just pulling down the bottoms a bit, not like the model is spread eagle on the cover or anything. really suggestive isn't even about how much skin is overall shown it's all about how the model is posed and there is no question they'd put the cover model in a suggestive pose even if she was covered head to toe. This is entirely much ado about nothing.
Atomic Posted February 18, 2015 Report Posted February 18, 2015 Don't under estimate the ingenuity of a kid who wants to see some titties. That's really all there is to it.
Logan007 Posted February 18, 2015 Report Posted February 18, 2015 In this day and age seems a silly thing to get worked up about. Kids today are raised on the internet, you can see a hell of a lot more if you choose to. I never quite understood the puritanical view of the human body. Just doesn't make sense. Hell they've had the same kind of exposure for men too. When they do their body issue they have all the male athletes doing the same kind of **** to show off the abs. I don't think it has to do with showing the human body naked. I think it has to do with showing the human body in a sexually explicit pose on the cover of a magazine for everyone to see. Not that anyone buys magazines anymore. The only time I ever see a magazine rack is when I go into a gas station when I'm on a road trip. Going to the beach and seeing people in bikini's, even thong ones, is different then someone who is pulling their bikini's down in a sexual way. It has to do with body language. Oh, and just to make a comment about kids, not all kids are raised on the internet. Parents who give a crap don't let their kids do whatever they want on the internet. Please don't generalize. Don't under estimate the ingenuity of a kid who wants to see some titties. Unless you're really going to clamp down on what the kids are doing and be one of those overbearing never trust them with anything types, where there is a will there's a way. Really though I've seen the cover I don't think it is a sexually explicit pose at all, just pulling down the bottoms a bit, not like the model is spread eagle on the cover or anything. really suggestive isn't even about how much skin is overall shown it's all about how the model is posed and there is no question they'd put the cover model in a suggestive pose even if she was covered head to toe. This is entirely much ado about nothing. That's exactly what I am. It will make my kids that much smarter cause they'll need to outsmart me in order to get their hands on it. I also try to allow my kids to be kids and not grow up too fast like a lot of parents do. I am strict and I could don't what anyone thinks about it. And yes, I'm sure they can find it at a friends house, but I'm not going to encourage it by being a pushover parent who lets their kids do whatever they want. Back to the topic at hand. It may not seem sexually explicit to guys, but to others, someone pulling down their bottoms past the pubic line is a lot more sexually explicit then if she was just standing there. I'm just saying, not everyone is as desensitized as we are.
Atomic Posted February 18, 2015 Report Posted February 18, 2015 In this day and age seems a silly thing to get worked up about. Kids today are raised on the internet, you can see a hell of a lot more if you choose to. I never quite understood the puritanical view of the human body. Just doesn't make sense. Hell they've had the same kind of exposure for men too. When they do their body issue they have all the male athletes doing the same kind of **** to show off the abs. I don't think it has to do with showing the human body naked. I think it has to do with showing the human body in a sexually explicit pose on the cover of a magazine for everyone to see. Not that anyone buys magazines anymore. The only time I ever see a magazine rack is when I go into a gas station when I'm on a road trip. Going to the beach and seeing people in bikini's, even thong ones, is different then someone who is pulling their bikini's down in a sexual way. It has to do with body language. Oh, and just to make a comment about kids, not all kids are raised on the internet. Parents who give a crap don't let their kids do whatever they want on the internet. Please don't generalize. Don't under estimate the ingenuity of a kid who wants to see some titties. Unless you're really going to clamp down on what the kids are doing and be one of those overbearing never trust them with anything types, where there is a will there's a way. Really though I've seen the cover I don't think it is a sexually explicit pose at all, just pulling down the bottoms a bit, not like the model is spread eagle on the cover or anything. really suggestive isn't even about how much skin is overall shown it's all about how the model is posed and there is no question they'd put the cover model in a suggestive pose even if she was covered head to toe. This is entirely much ado about nothing. That's exactly what I am. It will make my kids that much smarter cause they'll need to outsmart me in order to get their hands on it. I also try to allow my kids to be kids and not grow up too fast like a lot of parents do. I am strict and I could don't what anyone thinks about it. And yes, I'm sure they can find it at a friends house, but I'm not going to encourage it by being a pushover parent who lets their kids do whatever they want. Back to the topic at hand. It may not seem sexually explicit to guys, but to others, someone pulling down their bottoms past the pubic line is a lot more sexually explicit then if she was just standing there. I'm just saying, not everyone is as desensitized as we are. Your kids have already outsmarted you. You might not know it yet, but the amount of time it takes you to figure it out is directly related to how seriously your kids will take you. Good luck!
MOBomberFan Posted February 18, 2015 Report Posted February 18, 2015 Thought this was relevant mbrg 1
The Unknown Poster Posted February 18, 2015 Author Report Posted February 18, 2015 Logan I respect your position with your kids. I'd try to shelter them enough to be kids as long as possible of I was a paren't. I have younger sisters so I know the lengths my parents go to keep tabs. As much as the iAge makes it easy for kids to see what they want it also makes it easy for parents to know what their kids are up to. In the picture the model is pulling her bottoms down. What of the bikini was cut that low....would that be different?
SPuDS Posted February 19, 2015 Report Posted February 19, 2015 Compare it to 2009... Lol so it's not even the first time? Man this world hurts my head sometimes..
The Unknown Poster Posted February 19, 2015 Author Report Posted February 19, 2015 Well in that kne the focus is on her showing her hip. Lol
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now